text:
First airplane with software?
What is the first airplane equipped with software system? Any type of avionics with the computer code, probably the compiled file.
I searched in Google, and it sounds like the F-8C Crusader jet fighter in 1972 from "Computers from Check In to the Flight Deck" article by Smithsonian. It is more like the complex controller system with large software package. I guess there would be the aircraft with the simpler avionics with compiled file before the F-8C. I am aware that NASA normally do research and test years before testing and deploying in the airplane, which put in the newspaper.
I have been seeing heated conversation on the definition of software system in the comment. I am sorry for somewhat vague in my question, In the question, the software would be a machine language, which could be an input to the instrument. I don't dictate compiled, non compiled, modifiable without hardware/electronics configuration nor fixed.
The reason behind my question was that I was wondered what was the first airplane with the instructed system by machine language instead of carefully configurated automatic system without code.

Interesting question!  The answer might be an autopilot, military communications, or even a bomb sight.  I bet the date will be 1947-1950, not 1972.

@CamilleGoudeseune Please, share some source among your candidates or no record in the Internet but only in the library?

First plane to fly using computers; because it was the same with (the answer below) range finding for battleships - the first computers, ever - were to shoot each other with, while you're moving in three dimensions and so are they. And also the fourth: time.

First airplane with avionics software? "A rather primitive ILS was introduced in 1929 but became truly useful only after 1945." https://www.britannica.com/technology/history-of-flight/Avionics-passenger-support-and-safety

@Mazura Thanks for the information about Instrument Landing System. Do you find the first aircraft with it? I searched, but it looks like the system is installed on ground not airplane (in 1938 to guide the Boeing 247-D https://www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Government_Role/landing_nav/POL14.htm)

A RAND report from 1982 suggests that the first digital computer in an aircraft was a fire control system on the F-102, quoting from page 1: "Among the earliest, if not the first, digital computers to fly was one in the MA-1 fire control system. It was developed in the early 1950s for the F-102 fighter to control the Falcon missile and folding fin rockets. A vacuum tube machine using subminiature tubes, it operated only at hundreds of operations per second."
This may not be strictly speaking, software, since it was written in machine code and not (as far as I can tell) programmable once it was installed, but I'd start there as an early marker and look for something in the 1950s.
A commenter notes below that my answer is not a response to the full question, which asks for "any type of avionics with the computer code..." For an answer to that, the OPs suggestion is the right one. NASA's modified F-8 is the first digital fly by wire controlled aircraft (see a NASA writeup here). Their suspicion that NASA would want to test this system before deploying it on an aircraft is also born out--the fly by wire system was adapted from the Apollo guidance computer, so by 1970 that had been tested in a pretty extreme environment a few times. ;)

Thanks for sharing the report. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-102_Delta_Dagger), it looks like the firing control system is called the MG-10 by Hughes (https://www.ausairpower.net/Falcon-Evolution.html#mozTocId995321) and deployed between 1952 and 1957 (http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Convair-F102.html)

Why would something written in machine code not be software? It's still a set of instructions that tell the computer what to do, doesn't matter what language it was initially written in. Being read-only doesn't really change things either.

It's also not [solid state] if it has vacuum tubes in it. Might have been the first airborne computer that had at least one integrated circuit in it, but that's not strictly speaking "digital". - This is also more like a frame challenge; "avionics" is in the question. You're talking about fire control, but at least that was the original reason to invent the computer in the first place.

@DanMašek I think the "soft" in "software" is to indicate that it is possible to modify/replace the instructions without having to manually reconfigure any physical components of machine the code is running on.  Whether the logic of this system meets that definition or not is unclear to me.

"Why would something written in machine code not be software?" I agree it's software, but I'm making this clear to the reader (of an aviation forum) so that someone who has a different answer (e.g. software written in a programming language) might feel that they can contribute a different answer.

@Mazura Its not "solid state", but it was definitely digital. It was not an analog "computer" system, it operated on discrete 0s and 1s. See e.g. article or apparent Hughes marketing material (pg 7)


text:
Are there any differences between turbofan and turbojet engines besides bypass air?
I think I understand both engine types, but I am just wondering am I right in saying that the only difference between the two types of engines is the bypass air (i.e. a turbofan is just a turbojet engine with bypassed air).
If not, what are the other differences between the engines apart from the bypassed air?
Any help on this matter would be much appreciated.

Might help https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/4966/what-is-the-difference-between-a-turbofan-and-a-turboprop-engine

Well, sort of correct. If you bleed some meaningful amount of air as bypass from a turbojet's compressor then it's by definition an also a turbofan. Quite a few turbofan engines has ultra small bypass ratio like 0.2x, some of which was indeed an originally turbojet design modified to bleed some bypass. Low bypass turbofan is indeed very similar to turbojet.

this anwser might be useful.

You are right about the bypass being the same result as a tubofan.
However the word turbofan refers to an extra turning bladed wheel in front of the compressor and larger in diameter it turns slower and moves air past the engine on the outside.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Why would a runway friction measurement improve over time?
Why would a runway friction measurement that I've just made (with a SARSYS friction tester) give better (condition improved) results than a measurement that I made 6 months ago? The runway has been in use in the interim and no repairs have been made in the interim.
The runway is asphalt and 15 years old. For both measurements, the runway was dry.

What makes you think it wouldn't be possible? What exactly have you measured, and how?

@MichaelKjörling Good evening Michael. The measurement was made with SARSYS friction tester! I'm just asking if it's possible to have a better result even if the runway was used all these months!

Please do not attempt to answer the question in the comments.

Did you do the test in exactly the same place on the runway ?

Is it the same friction tester tool you used 6 months ago or a different one ?

There could be a number of reasons. Temperature affects asphalt significantly or calibration could be off.
But if higher friction is measured in the touchdown area after significant use I would look to rubber deposited by landing aircraft tires, which is stickier than asphalt. Dragsters do burnouts before their runs to put rubber on their lane. It is just like glue.

I should add that rubber is sticky when dry, as specified in the question. If it gets wet it is like ice. In fact, the way dragsters initiate a burnout is to put a little water under the tire so they can get it to slip. The FAA has spec for removing said rubber, as grooved concrete is much more grippy when wet than tire rubber.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Why is runway friction measured at 65 km/h and 95 km/h?
Why do we measure at 65km/h and 95km/h when we do a Runway Friction Measurement? Are there differences?

Comments are also not for pseudo-answers. Clarification of the question is fine, but answering it is not.

Can you provide a source that says they’re measured at those speeds?

Honest follow-up question: why would it be measured at 95 km/h? What's special about that speed that makes it preferable?


text:
Why aren't aircraft cabins pressurized to sea level pressure?
From an article on WHO's website:

Although aircraft cabins are pressurized, cabin air pressure at cruising altitude is lower than air pressure at sea level. At typical cruising altitudes in the range 11 000–12 200 m (36 000–40 000 feet), air pressure in the cabin is equivalent to the outside air pressure at 1800–2400 m (6000–8000 feet) above sea level.

Why aren't cabins completely pressurized, but instead to 6000-8000', seeing that many passengers wouldn't have to endure sometimes painful popping in the ears?

If cabins were pressurized to sea level, what would happen when they land at the many airports that are well above sea level?

@jamesqf - I had a friend suffering from severe altitude sickness in the La Paz airport - her condition improved after takeoff.

@quiet flyer: Sure, that could well happen at high-altitude airports.  But my point was mainly about the OP's ear popping.  Instead of encountering it on takeoff, the passengers would just experience it when they land and the plane is depressurized from sea level to field elevation.  Though one would think it would be easy enough to gradually change pressure during the flight...

Will nobody mention the fact that sea level pressure is only about 30% higher than 8000ft? Put this against the pain, the crying babies, the ill people who are forbidden to fly.......?

Two reasons: Longevity and weight. Which really come down to money.
Airframes have a limited fatigue life, measured in flight cycles.
The main driving factor for airliner wear is pressurizing and depressurizing them. Each millibar of difference between cabin pressure and outside pressure effectively consumes some percentage of the airframe's fatigue life.
Reducing the cabin altitude means increasing this pressure difference, and thus consuming more of the airframe's life. This could be compensated for with sturdier construction, which adds weight. It would also consume a little more bleed air, requiring slightly heavier packs, which, as well as weight, means a loss of efficiency.
Luxury business jets often maintain a lower cabin altitude, such as 4,000 ft. This eats into their flight cycles, so they can still be switched to the usual 8,000 ft for flights without the owner/VIP inside.
Carbon fiber has a much longer fatigue life, so CFRP fuselages can afford to lower the cabin altitude to 6,000 ft, without reducing their life expectancy. This pressure altitude can also be maintained in other airliners at flight levels well below their ceiling.
The optimum compromise point is subject to a lot of debate. The highest cabin altitude that could be permitted is 15,000 ft, above which hypoxia-induced loss of consciousness can occur. The regulatory bodies have settled at 8,000 ft, so that's what the manufacturers target with most of their aluminum airliners, and that's where airlines prefer to run them even if they have a choice, to get more life out of their planes.

'+1' for the last paragraph.

Replace weight by money and you have it even further...

The higher the pressure differential between inside and outside, the more stress is put on the plane, which reduces lifespan, and the stronger it needs to be, which increases weight. More weight means more fuel burn and shorter range. All of these factors would combine to increase the overall cost of operation--and eventually fares.
Many passengers don't even notice the higher cabin altitude, especially the frequent fliers who account for the vast majority of airline revenue, so there is little financial incentive to change.

Is there any reason for choosing 6000 to 8000 feet? If it is some kind of optimization between "not too much structural stress" and "not too much passenger discomfort", how did we get to this figure?

@WilliamR.Ebenezer Above 10k you get noticeable cognitive impairment. So that's a hard upper limit.

@ratchet freak: Maybe folks who live at sea level might experience problems at 10K ft, but plenty of us have adapted to higher elevations and consider them normal.

I stumbled upon this thread whilst looking for information regarding maximum operating altitudes for commercial air ambulances with seal level cabins. Whilst Therac's answer is great I would suggest that its not the whole picture.
The majority of the work on the physiological consequences of aircraft cabin altitude was done by a Professor John Ernsting (who I had the great pleasure of meeting on several occasions) at Kings College in London. His work in aviation medicine was extensive and he was responsible for working with aircraft engineers to set the maximum acceptable cabin altitude for commercial cabins. Hypoxia is, as Therac points out, the physiological driver for this decision, but the goal was to set the bar well below the threshold for hypoxia induced cognitive impairment.
When we skydive above 10,000 ft AGL (in unpressurised aircraft) we tend to stick to the EASA guidelines of greater than 30 minutes of planned exposure above 10,000 ft requiring individual access to supplemental oxygen, but this is widely flouted in my experience. It is well known that there is considerable variation in the susceptibility to hypoxic environments from person to person.
Back to the commercial cabin. The basis of the 8000ft decision for commercial cabins was that at this altitude the haemoglobin / oxygen dissociation curve is in its flat portion. The curve represents the saturation of haemoglobin in the blood at any given partial pressure of oxygen in that blood. As the cabin altitude rises, the pressure falls and, if you like, less oxygen is driven across the alveolar membrane into the blood. This leads to a lower arterial oxygen pressure (Pa02) and therefore less saturated haemoglobin.
The curve is sigmoid (s shaped) in nature and flat at the highest Pa02. In other words, decreasing the Pa02 does not, initially, have much effect on the percentage saturation of haemoglobin. This is the area that is targeted by the 8000 ft cabin altitude. Raise that altitude significantly and you are on the steep part of the curve and haemoglobin saturation falls precipitously, lower it and you don't get a significant physiological advantage (because the haemoglobin is already between 92 and 98 % saturated).
So yes, its all about hypoxia and the cost benefit of maintaining a particular cabin wall differential pressure (and therefore cabin altitude). Of note is that modern aircraft tend to run their cabins at slightly lower altitude than 8000 ft - in the order of 4000 - 5000 ft. This gives slightly more physiological tolerance for those passengers with pulmonary disease without being over burdensome on the pressurisation packs or cabin wall life.
In line with the guidelines (I just read before posting) I'm an aviation physician with an interest in commercial patient transfer in the UK.

Because the extra air would add extra weight!
In all seriousness the weight of the extra air might well be on par with a layer of paint, or heavier, and we are often told that airliners are sometimes left partially unpainted (e.g. on undersides) to save weight.
Of course the extra structure required by the extra pressurization would also add weight.

On the other hand, if we could pressurize with a lighter-than-air gas like hydrogen or helium, then the more the better.  (Kidding)

Yeah, that cabin full of suffocated passengers would be a problem.

+1, the statement is correct. Air weighs a surprising amount over large volumes, analogous to the discussion here.

@Koyovis it is a true statement, but it is also a poor answer that buries the lede and devotes much more space to comical trivia than to the actual reason.

@quietflyer Definitely hydrogen. Let them breathe hydrox.

On an A320 the pressurised volume is 330m³. That's about 80kg per 0.2atm.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Could an amateur build a full-scale UAV?
FAA section 333 provides permission to fly in the NAS with an airworthiness certificate. Obviously, the design would need to be perfect with extremely redundant control schemes. Going through the red tape, could an amateur build a UAV the size of, say, an RV-8 and legally fly it like a normal airplane?

You sure can,
The FAA provides a special airworthy cert for this kind of thing. There are a few types that you can apply for depending on what you are trying to fly. You can find the relevant info here
You can find the full Special Order that covers it here.

Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally
  Piloted Aircraft

Purpose of This Order. This order establishes procedures for issuing special airworthiness certificates in the experimental
  category or special flight permits to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
  and manned aircraft integrated with UAS technology. For the purposes
  of this directive, manned aircraft integrated with UAS technology are
  referred to as optionally piloted aircraft (OPA).

In your specific example if it was an RV-8 (built as it usually is) with the ability to remote pilot it added in, it would be classified as an "optionally piloted aircraft"


text:
61.129 (a)(3)(v), can it be with multiple instructors?
My question is can the 3 hours in prep for the check ride be done with different instructors, or does it have to be all 3 hours with the same instructor? Thanks.

I believe you're referring to US FAA regulations, so I added the appropriate tag. If my guess is wrong, then please [Edit] to indicate the jurisdiction in question.

You are correct. Thank you.

There are lots of regulations that are ambiguous. This isn’t one of them. If they wanted it to be with only one instructor they would have said so. It is common to have multiple instructors for the checkride prep. Often a primary instructor will have another instructor give a mock checkride to the student so that the student gets practice performing under pressure with someone they aren’t used to flying with.

Thank you. This helps greatly.

Nothing in the regs say that you have to do anything with one instructor. But nothing in the regs says you can force an instructor to sign off on something he/she does not want to sign. Ask before you hire an instructor.

There’s no requirement per se that multiple instructors cannot do this.  However, the CFI giving you the logbook endorsement to take the practical will probably want to log that time with you for liability reasons.


text:
Are Sophisticated Planes with Multiple Computer Interfacing Safer to Fly than Traditional Aircraft?
I passenger travel short haul flights to the carribean islands every month for business. I typically fly on an Embraer E190 or Airbus-320...I feel confident on the 190, I suppose I like the standard control wheel/yoke and  from a craft size and technology level standpoint, it just feels like a manageable piece of equipment. But on the Airbus, I just can't warm up to the joystick control. It doesn't seem natural; which provokes my question.
Given that all pilots are simply human, how in the world is it possible to have a comprehensive knowledge of all of the sophisticated computers and electronics that are required to interface to fly a plane safely? It seems to me that in truth, pilots have just enough knowledge to operate these new planes and systems under normal conditions and the moment a malfunction occurs it becomes a race to a safe landing with only troubleshooting guides to help understand what is happening and try to offset it long enough to get the plane safely of the ground.
This is a broad stroke assumption, but it seems that the simplest of a breach can affect the operation of another and pilots are reduced to a guessing game to keep systems operating normally; which is not very comforting. Isn't it better just to get back to the basics and avoid these overly complex computers?

In both cases (Embraer and Airbus), the flight surfaces are operated by hydraulics. Why do you think it matters what kind of stick the pilots move to tell the plane to activate the hydraulic pumps?

To add to @DavidRicherby, the E190 is also a "Fly-By-Wire" system and the flight controls are not directly connected to the control surfaces in either the A320 or the E190, so the actual controls in the cockpit don't make any difference, they are both computer controlled. See details on the E190 system (Page 17).

Commercial pilots also undergo recurrent training (every 6 months I think, or 12 months) and checkrides to be up to snuff on handling the plane, with all kinds of emergency situations thrown at them (in a simulator), so they need to know the planes systems pretty well to handle all that.  There are infrequent things where the plane can be stabilized and a solution looked up to find a solution; the first step in any situation is gonna be fly the airplane tho.

thanks for your comments David Richerby and Ron Beyer. But neither makes me feel any better. Still trying to understand how pilots can grasp anything more than a very basic understanding of how these computers interface and more importantly, how to determine the reaction of one system failure upon another. Seeing as how computers control rudder-stabilizer-elevators-pitch etc... It just doesn't feel like more is better... thats all. I could be way off - just sayin'.  Why is it better for computers to control instead of a human?

Take a look at the document I linked to show how many redundancies are in the system. The important thing to remember is that as airplanes got bigger, direct (cable) controls became impractical. The amount of force on the control column is directly related to the amount of force required to move the aircraft. The A320 has been flying since 1988 (30 years) and not a single accident has been attributed to the fly-by-wire system (although one pilot did blame it, data indicates he was actually at fault).

@RonBeyer while it may be true no A320 was lost because of the flight control system, there have been multiple incidents caused by pilots misunderstanding the system's operation or weaknesses, which seems to be more to the point of this question.

thank you fooot

thanks you @fooot

Flying itself is "not natural." Regardless of the particular systems used, pilots only use them reliably through extensive training and even when your controls are connected via rods or cables directly to the control surfaces or other devices, you need to learn how they're connected in order to handle failures.

how in the world is it possible to have a comprehensive knowledge of
  all of the sophisticated computers and electronics that are required
  to interface to fly a plane safely?

The same way you learn about any aircraft, you study the operational manuals and related documentation. In theory aircraft that use the airbus fly by wire system are safer as they offer protection against the pilot inadvertently putting the aircraft into a dangerous situation (high G, stall, etc.).
I think that there are some misconceptions in your question about the required training for flying something like an A320. Pilots are required to know how the aircraft will respond in all situations and the errors and messages the computer may throw at them. This is no different than understanding what a tumbling mechanical attitude indicator is doing or how to identify a bad analog instrument. Broadly speaking failures are failures and identifying them has more to do with situational awareness, understanding of your systems, and to some extent experience. Digital cockpits merely change the text and pictures in the books but still require the same basic fundamentals to identify a failure.
Some might also say that analog cockpits are more complicated than their digital counterparts. So much so that jets that once required a crew of 3 in the analog days can now be flown by two.

It seems to me that in truth, pilots have just enough knowledge to
  operate these new planes and systems under normal conditions and the
  moment a malfunction occurs it becomes a race to a safe landing with
  only troubleshooting guides to help understand what is happening and
  try to offset it long enough to get the plane safely of the ground.

Pilots do not have just enough knowledge and frankly that is short changing the vast amount of hours required to be in command of even an A320. Pilots train in full motion simulators for all kinds of emergencies so that when the time comes they only need a quick reference card to get the plane safely on the ground.

Digital aircraft are not necessarily kaput if one thing fails and systems are designed such that a failure does not cause down stream effects. Systems often can independently be shut off and pulled out of sequence in the event of a failure. On top of that there are lots of failure modes (even in the side stick planes) that allow for all kinds of direct control.

But how does this all tie into a plane being safer...
The FAA main advice in any emergency is to "fly the plane" most training stresses (and most accidents cite a lack of) "Situational Awareness" so if we can provide a cockpit that offers a pilot more information on how the plane is flying, where they are, and whats going on we can make it easier to fly the plane and maintain your situational awareness in any event (even if some systems are failing). That all trickles out, ultimately, to a safer plane.

thank you for the explanation. So, what about "pitot tubes". Pilots who are trained in $10 million full motion flight simulators that, as you say, "lack situational awareness" and are unable to identify inaccurate speed readings caused by a one-inch tube responsible for relaying critical speed and associated info that effects how the computers tolerate auto pilot, in-turn causing the pilots to slow the plane into a stall over fear of tearing it apart at 38k ft in the sky. How does this make any sense at all? It doesn't. ITS CRAZY.. "In theory"... anyway

@DominicV Analog aircraft and digital aircraft are susceptible to pitot failures in the same way. you are clearly referencing Air France 447 which is discussed elsewhere here and makes perfect sense if you fully understand the incident. The digital cockpit was not the issue, intermittent functionality was, the same speed reading intermittent issue would have read out on an old steam gauge. If you have a technical question about 447 consider asking it here there is lots of analysis and data on that incident.


text:
In normal condition, is the Airbus A320 APU fuel supplied by the main engine boost pump only?
I have a question relating to APU fuel system.
As said in material, there are 2 system supplying fuel for APU to operate. 1st one is primary and 2nd one is secondary.
In the 1st system or low pressure system, there is an APU fuel boost pump locating in LH main fuel tank. Its said that this boost pump is used in starting process or in condition when fuel feed system is lower than required.
Does it mean that, in normal condition, APU fuel boost pump is OFF and fuel is supplied to APU by Main Engine Boost Pump (or Engine Driven Pump)?

Hi Harry. I edited the title of your question to try to summarize what you are asking. Feel free to [Edit] further.

Thanks @a CVn :)

The LH fuel line feeds the APU unless the pressure is too low. In this case the advisory "FUEL LO PR" will be displayed on the APU page of the lower ECAM and backup pump is started.
From the A320 family FCOM:


text:
When can a taxi clearance allow me to cross multiple runways?
I was just reading the FAA instrument procedures handbook and saw the paragraph below in Chapter 1. I'm puzzled by this, because I routinely get "Cross runways XX right and XX left on Alpha" as part of my taxi clearance. How do I square that with the statement here?

Instructions to cross a runway are issued one at a
time. Instructions to cross multiple runways are not
issued. An aircraft or vehicle must have crossed the
previous runway before another runway crossing
is issued. This applies to any runway, including
inactive or closed runways.

(Top of 1-8.)

How sure are you that the controllers you deal with are strictly following the rules?

I'm not! But I don't think I've ever had a progressive taxi clearance at this airport, where I've done probably 100 outings in the last couple of years. It's always just the taxiway sequence then any runway crossing clearances. So if they're breaking the rules, they're all doing it.

Can you tell us the airport (so we can look at the taxi diagrams), the full taxi clearance, and the takeoff runway (not just the runways you crossed)? And if you can tell us an approximate date and time when you heard this, someone may be able to find it on liveatc.net.

Also, are the runway centerlines less than 1000ft apart? See this answer

The airport is KCCR, with two sets of parallels. 32L/R and 19L/R. One routinely gets “runway 19L, taxi via ... alpha, cross 32 left approach and 32 right on alpha.” or on landing on 32 left “taxi to the east ramp via juliet, cross 19 left and 19 right on juliet”. The center lines are probably 500’ apart.

Pondlife’s explanation appears to be correct, per this document. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N7110.528.pdf

The general FAA rule is indeed that ATC cannot issue a clearance to cross multiple runways.
However, waivers are available to airports with parallel runways close enough to make it impractical or even hazardous for aircraft to stop in between them and wait for a second instruction. They are essentially treating such a pair as a single runway for the purposes of this rule.
I'm not aware of any list of airports with such waivers or notification to pilots. However, one could predict whether it is likely by looking at airport diagrams. Consider the example of SFO/KSFO, which has such a waiver on both pairs; even a quick glance reveals why it's needed.
Also, I suspect the main concern behind the general rule is pilots misremembering which runway(s) they were cleared to cross when there is a substantial distance between them. The case of two very close parallels, along with the unusual (and thus memorable) multiple crossing instruction, does not seem to have the same safety concern.

If a waiver is issued, is perhaps a NOTAM published so that pilots are aware of non-standard ground clearances?

@mongo Added text addressing that.

They don't even have to be parallel runways, at least not at my tower.

Based on the FAA Safety Alert posted below, since June 2010 controllers were no longer allowed to give multiple runway crossings at the same time:

Instructions to cross a runway will be issued one at a time. Instructions to cross multiple runways will not be issued.
  An aircraft or vehicle must have crossed the previous runway before another runway crossing is issued.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Jun/Runway_Crossing_Procedural_Change_FAAST_Blast.pdf

Does that cancel waivers and prevent new waivers being issued?


text:
What do those writings mean that are on the landing gear doors?
I've been watching carrier videos a lot these days and I notice these writings. What do these writings means? I didn't upload all of them, most of the time there are location names and sometimes person names. What is written on those doors? This says UK, this F-18 belongs to US, this is a screen image from a video that was recorded in Naval Air Station Whidbey Island

Bizarrely, thats not How you spell Bury St Edmunds

For a US Navy jet, it is usually the plane captain (who is responsible for checking the plane and making sure it's flight ready) on the landing gear door.
In the image above, the plane captain's rank abbreviation (AE2) and name are on the first line and hometown is underneath.

You said usually. What else writtens on? Or whose names written on?

"Usually" just means https://www.blueridgejournal.com/navy/lingo.htm, https://www.quora.com/Why-are-pilots-names-stenciled-on-their-aircraft, and https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/2wjjfm/what_does_it_mean_when_someones_name_is_on_the/ seem to agree that it is the captain, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-_g3ZMB2kU shows a name that doesn't appear to match. I didn't find any sources that suggested any other name should commonly be found on the gear door.

AE2 is "Aviation Electrician's Mate Petty Officer 2nd Class", I'm prettttty sure that's not the rank of the captain of this plane...

@Jpe61 A "plane captain" is ground crew responsible for the aircraft. It is not the same thing as "captain of the plane" or "the plane's captain".

Oh, sorry, sloppy reading and fast reacting on my part, I somehow managed to misplace the "s" inside my head. My mistake! I should not comment at that hour of day...

He must be so chuffed that they spelled his hometown of Bury St Edmunds wrong, then! Really raise his confidence in the groundcrew's attention to detail. :-D

@Dan: Groundcrew was so knackered after spelling "N. T. Vroegindewey" that they didn't have the focus to spell "Bury St. Edmunds".


text:
How many turns of a 737 trim wheel equal 2.5 degrees stabilizer deflection?
After the well known crashes I looked at the question of stabilizer trimming. In case of trim runaway the pilot is supposed to "grasp and hold" the wheel manually steering the stabilizer. Hence my question: how many turns of the wheel to achieve a 2.5 degrees deflection of the stabilizer?

Good question. Neither FCOM, FCTM nor QRH answer how much one wheel rotation changes the trim, as far as I could find. The only reference to an amount of rotation is this: "Use force to cause the disconnect clutch to disengage. Approximately 1/2 turn of the stabilizer trim wheel may be needed." from the QRH, but this does not answer the question.

About 45 Rotations
In this YouTube video you can see Mentour pilot demonstrating manual trimming of a Boeing 737 NG. They start at about 11:30 with:

we have 4 units nose down now

and at 12:30 they say:

now we are at about 3 degrees

I counted 18 full rotations of the trim wheel in this time. This would result in
$$ \frac{18}{4^\circ - 3^\circ} \times 2.5^\circ = 45 $$
rotations for 2.5 degrees of trim change.
Note that the trim indicator is not very precise, so the number is only an estimate:

(frame from the video)

Thanks! I think that "units" are not exactly degrees, but the estimate is good. So when MCAS is active the wheel will turn 45 turns in 9 seconds!Terrific

@Ahmed I always wondered if those units are actually degrees. I asked that question now.

OK, it was unclear in the papers I read. Thanks


text:
What are these markings under the passenger door?
Is there anybody who can explain what the markings just below the passenger door edge do?

I do not think the catering truck will be able to approach the front left passenger door. Am i wrong?

I have only ever seen catering trucks on the starboard side of the aircraft where foodstuffs can be unloaded directly into galley without affecting passengers planing and deplaning.

They appear to be alignment marks for the passenger loading bridge (PLB) and air stairs. Some airlines choose mark their aircraft and bridges, in order to prevent damage to the aircraft door due to misalignment of the bridge or air stairs.
On the PLB, there will be a corresponding mark on the floor, at the edge.
The two lower marks would be used for air stair alignment (i.e., when a PLB is not available).
Note the marks at the edge of the bridge in this photo (the position of the alignment marks are not standardized and are carrier specific):

Thank you for the answer but i can not view the linked photo of the marked bridge adjacent to the aircraft. Can you give me an open link for it.

The photo is hosted on StackExchange's Imgur instance, which is publicly available. If you can't see it, it is possible that Imgur is being blocked (perhaps by your company or ISP).

Sometimes imgur is "over capacity" and that shows broken links in SE posts. Give it some time.


text:
Since there are no toilets on smaller aircraft, how do you deal with the inevitable?
How do you handle business on a small plane on long flights? For example a cross country in a C-172.

Empty one gallon plastic milk jug

This reminds me of this amazing story. http://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-most-embarrassing-plane-pooping-story-ever-1456846301

I appreciate the use of the comfort tag in this question.

In a small plane, you also have a lot of options for places to land.  Years ago, I used to have to fly Reno to Las Vegas area occasionally, and got used to dropping in to the dirt strip belonging to a brothel that was right on the route.  Park at the far end, take a leak, and be on my way.

It seems like all the answers only deal with half of the problem...

I've had passengers in light single-engine aircraft use sick sacks for both bladder and bowel relief, and I've had them soil their pants. I carried Ozium for the smell.

Seems like the best answer is plan ahead and keep flight legs short (couple of hours). It becomes the same problem as long-distance driving - after all, cars don't have built-in lavatories. For perspective: several times a year, I travel one of the busiest highways in North America. It has a number of food/fuel/rest stops along the section I travel. I only rarely see cars stopped along the shoulders for relief breaks, but the facilities at rest stops are well used. My point: as long as you don't try to go too far without a break, people can usually manage.

If I'm flying alone and I die then I'm pretty screwed anyway. And I make a point not to fly with tax collectors. That answer your question? (/s)

Basically, you have to land.

Travel Jonhs obvious

How do you think the breadbasket fields get fertilized? Why do you think they call them flyover states?

Liquids, a wide mouthed plastic bottle with, and this is very important, a tight fitting watertight lid.   Solids - never needed it thankfully but  I carry a stick on bag and wipes just in case.

Why can't small planes, provide a small direct opening in the passenger seat, where passengers can relieve themselves. Obviously the pilot needs to steer clear of residential areas.

The other answers are good, but don't touch on one key method...
Prevention.
Small aircraft like a Cessna 172 have a limited cruise time, about 4 hours maximum. They are small enough that they get relatively uncomfortable after 2-3 hours, and if flying in turbulence or challenging conditions, flights can be relatively short.
The best way I've found to avoid the problem is to make sure to use the facilities as close to departure time as possible and to limit my intake of fluids in the hour or so leading up to a flight.
The other option you have is to land and use the "facilities". Many unmanned airports that have terminals (like KMNM) have a keypad access and facilities inside. Airports are pretty common and you usually aren't more than 30 minutes away from an airport with a bathroom.
Just as a personal account of this, I was doing night training at my local field (Class C) and it was late (10:00 PM or so). One gentleman came on the radio and asked the tower if the FBO was open so he could use the facilities. The controller responded that the FBO was closed but he could taxi him to a quiet corner of the airfield for a few minutes. The pilot gladly took him up on the offer.

Prevention will only go so far. One time I did a flight to Guernsey (one of the English Channel Islands). It was an early start and I deliberately did not drink much, then used the commode just before leaving. Still, despite all my precautions I was bursting by the time we got there, to the point I had to ask the tower to taxi us to the closest relief. He told me they get that all the time.

@GdD Yes, of course, nothing is foolproof. I always remind my passengers to use the bathrooms before leaving, and if I'm going for more than 2 hours with passengers I try to plan stops at the 2 hour mark just to stretch legs and take care of business if need be.

@StekDobbel A lot could be (and has) written about how caffeine affects different people. For me, it doesn't have any appreciable affect. I can down a caffeinated drink just before bed, or binge on them for a week and quit cold turkey without any kind of withdrawal. My wife on the other hand can't drink caffeinated drinks after about 5pm and knowing how she is without her coffee, I'd say she goes through withdrawals. They also don't affect my, uh... schedule. A bottle of water goes through me a lot quicker than a bottle of soda.

I have had success with these things. They are basically a little baggy that has the same stuff they put in a diaper.
You can always wear adult diapers (and I have heard of it being done)
Some small planes can be fitted with a pilot relief tube. This is effectively a tube connected to a small venturi outside the plane. The venturi creates a low pressure system that causes there to be some suction on the tube. The tube terminates in the cockpit near the seat and the pilot is able to relieve them self. The fluid is drawn through the tube, atomized in the venturi and dispersed.
There are some more elaborate bottle like scenarios.
But of course, a good old bottle will suffice, it did for Lindbergh,

[Said to King George V upon his landing]
  So Lindbergh explained that in his airplane his chair was made of
  wicker and there was a hole in it. And there was a funnel below that
  hole. And his waste, whenever nature called, would go down through
  there into sort of an aluminum can. And so he explained that and said
  that rather than show up with it in Le Bourget, the airport that he
  landed in, that he just dropped it over France.

Some of the larger aircraft like the TBM, Caravan and similar turbo props can be fitted with a seat that hides a little toilet underneath.
As a bit of a counter to Rons points, a lot of smaller planes (Mooney comes to mind) have "extended range tank" upgrades that can greatly extend the range of light aircraft. Provided your back, ears, and stamina can handle it some people are flying 5-8 hour legs in GA planes. This has led to a lot of "interesting" scenarios and solutions by pilots.

"What's that venturi tube for?" "Emergencies." "Oh, does it power your gyros if the vacuum pump fails?" "It does not."

I wonder if, via means of some sort of switch or stopcock, the same venturi tube could be used for two different purposes, pilot relief and powering gyros?  Of course, modern-day technology has eliminated any need for vacuum-powered gyros- and likewise any need for urine-producing carbon-based pilots!

As mentioned prevention is generally best. Part of my job involves aerial survey work in a P.68, with flights regularly going over 5 hours. My personal record is a 7.5 hour flight. This is my method to keep bodily functions at bay:
The day before a long flight drink plenty of water to stay as hydrated as possible. On the day of the flight get your fluids in early in the day and avoid tea and coffee for at least 2 hours beforehand, and avoid dehydrating foods such as bacon rolls for breakfast. Relieve yourself as close as possible to your departure time.
In flight only take small sips of water to stave off thirst. At the end of a long flight I usually end up with roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of a bottle of water left.
As a last resort there are various devices to be used as mentioned that come in varieties for both genders, and there is always that water bottle...

From a human factors point of view, reducing intake is  probably not the recommended method. Interesting: https://flightsafety.org/hf/hf_jul-aug01.pdf

Though almost any wide-mouthed bottle will serve for a male, there are also relief bottles, such as the Little John, which offer an adapter for females (the Lady J). There are also the pouch-type, such as the Travel John, which work for both genders and contain chemicals that turns the urine into gel and masks its odor. The major pilot supply stores, including Aircraft Spruce and Sporty's, both carry them.

On small GA aircraft, you are limited to urination as there is no reasonable way to defecate in such an aircraft.  The problem can be handled similar to what the military provides for combat aircraft ie 'Piddle Packs' - basically a Ziploc bag with strip of dry sponge to absorb liquid waste.  There are also specialized bottles and liquid waste containers sold at pilot shops or even an empty water bottle with a screw on lid can suffice.  These bottles are most easily utilized by male crew members due to their anatomy, although custom shaped funnels have been developed to provide better access by female flight crew.  I have also heard of more dedicated women flyers using adult diapers on long flights to solve this problem.
Small turboprop aircraft like the TBM-700/850/9XX, PC-12, King Airs, etc. do offer optional toilets - basically a seat hidden under a cushion with a removable collection pan underneath which is cleaned out in an FBO during servicing.  It is little more than a flying outhouse, offers minimal privacy and is recommended to be used only in emergencies due to the device filling the cabin up with the pungent odor of feces for the remainder of the flight.

I used to fly on occasion on only USAF aircraft. Ones from the 50s and 60s. Their solution to the pee problem? There was a vertical pee tree, with multiple "cups" you could stick your johnson in and let go. For EVERYONE in the plane to enjoy. For women? Who knows!

Hang glider pilots normally fly in a prone position in a sleeping-bag-like harness that may be unzipped from the toes to the waist.  So, you might imagine, it's quite possible to drop liquid ballast in flight.  Look out below!
Many sailplanes have pee-tubes installed-- a funnel-like cup attached to a rubber tube leading to the outside.  Other times a condom catheter, applied before flight, is used to connect to the tube, or to facilitate peeing into a bottle or plastic bladder while seated in a low-slung seat.  In a light plane, peeing into a bottle should not too be hard for those of the male persuasion, especially when flying alone.  For some folks, the need would have to be great to manage that in close proximity to other passengers.
And so on and so forth-- you get the idea.  As for the other kind of ballast-- I have no idea.  Somehow the need seems not to arise.
Sailplane pilots, sitting under a transparent canopy in hot weather, are cautioned not to avoid drinking water before and during flight-- dehydration is a serious concern.

There are several options, none of them super convenient.
I've found TravelJohn to be the best, as it has a powder in it that turns to a gel when it contacts liquid so there is no spillage. The opening is such that it can work equally well (that is to say, pretty poorly!) for both male and female anatomy.

Sporty's sells a little container called "Little John"

... but then you could always use an empty water bottle.
Obviously in a small 4-seater, there is no privacy and it's hard to position yourself, so to speak. I assume you're mainly concerned about peeing. There aren't a lot of options for going #2 except landing.

Or do as my syndicate member did on a week-long mountain wave expedition. He was flying in good wave, which hadn't appeared for the previous few day, so he wasn't coming down for anything trivial. When he did eventually land, he had this big grin from ear to ear, and a dark patch that went from his socks to half-way up his shirt. He was handed the disinfectant, and left to get on with the upholstery.

A 5ct plastic bag has often been used with good success for ...fluids, and a bunch of 'em is always on board.


text:
Why weren't WWII piston aircraft able to fly at 500mph?
So, I just noticed that typical WWII piston engine fighter aircraft had a power to weight ratio of around 300W/kg, even at gross weight and altitude. This means that if we assume that an aircraft has an L/D of 10, and is allowed to fly at 80% throttle, we get a cruise speed of 240m/s (534 mph).
If we accept the situation as above, it would seem that the practical limit to speed was aerodynamics. This can be solved with swept wings and ducted fans. But this was never done.
Why was this not done? What am I missing?

How are you going from L/D to predicted cruise speed?

@quietflyer speed = gravity  × D/L × P/M

"These can be solved with swept wings and ducted fans.". And that's pretty much what happened.  Oh, and coincidentally, right around that same time they also replaced heavier piston engines with lighter turbine engines, gaining further performance advantages.

@MichaelHall well it took rather long to do that, suggesting some difficulty, and the resulting powerplants were very inefficient. My point is, they already had the engine power for several years.

Not "rather long", the first swept wing jets came right on the heels of WW2.  Development was lightning fast in those days, compared to the pace nowadays.  My point is, the dawn of the jet age included many advancements, and presumably retaining piston power wasn't compelling enough to consider at the time.  Or now...  Aviation is competitive, if there were advantages or gaps in the market someone would exploit them.

re "speed = gravity × D/L × P/M" -- I don't think that works at all-- will need to think about it a bit--

re "speed = gravity × D/L × P/M" -- 10/1 would be the max achievable L/D, right?  At top speed when the wing is flying at low angle-of-attack and low lift coefficient the L/D would be much lower, right?

At the end of WWII, aircraft development was done on paper with slide rules and a good dose of "that looks pretty good, build it". Whereas today's aircraft development is done with computers, CFD and mountains of red tape that significantly reduce the speed of development. If you want to see "rather long" development times, look at something like the B1, F22 or F35, then compare that to the B52, U2, and SR71.

Well, they nearly did. For example, the Soviet Yak-9U, American P-51 and German Bf.109K-4 piston fighters were able to reach 700-720 km/h (430-450 mph or 380-390 knots) at around 4000 m.

@FreeMan the speed of development is reduced, but planes and flying things are significantly safer today, even at their prototype stage ... the test pilots are still some kind  of crazy good pilots, but less crazy.
Of course this does not apply to the V-22 ;)
And of course as long as that red tapes, CFD and production is held all the same level of quality. It should not be that you carefully design planes to save 2% of fuels ... and then in production you forget 60% of the bolts on some panel...

What am I missing?

The contribution of zero lift drag to overall drag at high speed. L/D drops to much lower values than 10 at the top speed of piston-powered airplanes.
Let's take an example: Given is the power loading (56.8 kW/m²) and the zero lift drag coefficient of 0.028. How fast can this airplane fly at an altitude of 6000 m (air density $\rho$ there is 0.66012 kg/m³) when its propeller efficiency is 85%?
$$P = \frac{D\cdot v}{\eta_{Prop}} \Leftrightarrow \frac{\rho\cdot c_D\cdot S}{2\cdot\eta_{Prop}}\cdot v^3  \Leftrightarrow v = \sqrt[\Large{3}\;]{\frac{2\cdot P\cdot\eta_{Prop}}{\rho\cdot c_D\cdot S}}$$
If you plug in the numbers (don't forget to use W, not kW!), the result will be 173.55 m/s or 624.8 km/h. If I now tell you the wing area of only 16.4 m², can you guess which airplane I have used?
56.8 times 16.4 is 932 kW or 1250 hp, which is the power output of a DB 605 A1 in 5800 m. And the poor drag coefficient had been confirmed in the large windtunnel in Chalais-Meudon (on an earlier version, however). So this is a Me-109 in a version between G1 and G8. If we now look up the top speed at that altitude, we get 626 km/h in 6100 m. This is very close and should demonstrate that induced drag is completely unimportant at top speed.
This also means that speed will only increase with the third root of power. To get to 500 mph which is 805 km/h or 223.5 m/s, engine power needs to more than double to 2660 hp, neglecting any mass increase or Mach effects on propeller performance! With the usual power loading of contemporary piston engines of 0.5 kg/hp, this massive engine realistically needs to have a much larger airframe, so we are fighting diminishing returns.
You start from the wrong assumptions. L/D at top speed is much lower than 10.

Guess I should have made my comment https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/102809/piston-aircraft-flying-at-500mph#comment288086_102809 into an actual answer, that seems to be the point of this answer and I think it is correct --

Wait a sec, why on earth would you use wing area?

@Abdullah ¿What are you asking? Please be more specific!

You used wing area to get the drag. Whereas I would expect you to use frontal area. Is it because pressure drag us insignificant?

I used power loading (power per wing area) as the input, and a rather high value of it, too. In the formula I have power P and area S on both sides of the fraction. If you only double engine size and weight, the unchanged wing area will become too small for decent take-off and landing characteristics, but will help in going faster (remember the 209 V1 which held the speed record for a while: It had a highly tuned DB601 and a smaller wing than the regular 109).

What am I missing?

The historical and technological development.

Let's start with the historical one.
The benefits of a swept wing had already been known at least since 1935 when A. Büsemann presented a paper at the Fifth Volta Conference in Rome about the advantages of a swept wing at supersonic speed (Busemann, A. - "Aerodynamicher Auftrieb bei Überschall Geschwindigkeiten" Luftfahrtforschung, Bd 12, Nr 6, October 3, 1935, pp. 210-220).
Apparently nobody among the attendees (of several nationalities) was able to appreciate that discovery, except the German government that classified that paper. In the following years, further theoretical and practical research was carried out in Germany that verified the property of wing sweep in delaying the onset of the compressibility drag. The same research was independently conducted in the USA (although with some ten years of delay) and resulted in the seminal paper "Wing plan forms for high-speed flight" by Robert T. Jones.
So, from an historical point of view only the Germans knew/pursued the advantages given by a swept wing design and only toward the end of the war.

Anyway, this knowledge alone would have been completely useless without another technological improvement of paramount importance. The speed seen by a propeller blade is given by the composition of its rotating speed and its flying speed; being them perpendicular the total speed is simply $\sqrt{V²_{rot}+V²_{fly}}$. When this speed reaches transonic values, aerodynamic drag and pitching moment of the blades increase exponentially. The only way to increase flying speed avoiding transonic effect would be by reducing the rotating speed but unfortunately this would also reduce the thrust generated by the propeller. So getting both lot of thrust and high flying speed is something that couldn't be be achieved with the propeller technology of that time: it's not a matter of power, it's a matter of limits of physics (today, as pointed out by @Pilothead, much higher speed can be achieved).
The only way to overcome this limitation would have been via a completely new propulsion system: jet engine arrived just at the right moment. Swept wing and jet engine eventually came together towards the end of the war in the Messerschmitt Me-262.

Would a (piston powered) ducted fan still suffer at transonic tip speeds?

@CamilleGoudeseune: the speed seen by a blade is given by the composition of its rotating speed and its flying speed. Being them perpendicular: $V_{tip}=\sqrt{V²_{rot}+V²_{fly}}$ no matter if there's a duct or not. Anyway a ducted fan would produce some 30% more thrust at the same power but it would be also also more susceptible in respect to the airflow orientation.

The ATR42 is a poor example of physics limited prop plane speed; its competitor the Dash8-400 cruises at 600kph by using more fuel in an updated design. The ATR is more popular for its fuel efficiency. The Tu95 cruises above 700kph and the Rare Bear F8F Bearcat hit 850kph. The X84H 'Thunderscreech' disputedly hit 1000kph. Prop planes are physics limited, but not at the speed of an ATR.

@Pilothead: yes, and the Piaggio P-180 is actually "the fastest propeller-driven aircraft with speed of 927.4 km/h (576.3 mph; 500.8 kn)". I've chosen the not so advanced ATR to have a somewhat fairer comparison with the technology of the '40s

That P180 record is ground speed, not airspeed. Its high speed cruise is 750kph.

The name is Busemann, not Büsemann!

@Pilothead: what does it imply?

@PeterKämpf: corrected!

Another effect which must be considered is that when the vector-resolved airspeed at the tip of a propeller blade which is spinning and translating through the air gets close to mach 1, the drag force on it goes up and the prop tip's thrust generation falls off and it becomes a noise generator instead of a propulsion generator. Spinning the prop faster than that just moves the mach 1 point closer to the prop hub and renders more of the blade less effective. So you have to add blades to add thrust  in addition to sweeping their tips.


text:
What is the difference between gross weight and MTOW in an aircraft specification?
On Wikipedia you often find aircraft specified with a separate "gross weight" and "MTOW". The term "gross weight" implies "weight with maximum fuel and payload". Yet this is not the case, since the MTOW is given separately.
I tried googling 'gross weight Vs MTOW" and got this.

Gross Takeoff Weight: The weight of the airplane just before brake
release to begin the takeoff roll.
Useful Load: The weight of crew, cargo, passengers, baggage, and
usable fuel.
Maximum Ramp Weight (MRW): The maximum weight for ground operations.
Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW): The maximum weight for takeoff.

As you can see, not only is the term "Gross Weight" not used directly, but the term that is used has a definition that isn't particularly helpful in this context.

Not sure where you found this definition: "gross weight" implies "weight with maximum fuel.amd payload". That is certainly not the correct definition.

Sounds like a Wikipedia problem to me.  If I'm reading a "Gross Weight" value in a Wikipedia entry I would tend to think they are probably giving the max allowed Gross Weight, although they really should say so explicitly.  As far as splitting hairs between max ramp weight and max takeoff weight,  I dunno.  Basically, if you are giving one single number for "Gross Weight" without any further explanation, then you are not being very precise in your terminology.  As to why that number should be different from MTOW or MRW, who knows.  Which is usually given as the higher number, GW or MTOW?

(In your linked B-29 example MTOW was the higher number, noted as "combat overload", so maybe the GW number is some sort of original designed max TOW or RW?)

The gross weight is the current total weight of the aircraft. It is basically the value a scale would show when putting the aircraft on it. It obviously changes all the time, e.g. when payload (passengers or cargo) is loaded/unloaded or when the aircraft if refueled and also during the flight as fuel is burned.
The Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) is a legal limitation given by the aircraft manufacturer. It is the highest value for the gross weight at which the aircraft is certified to take off. When the gross weight is higher than MTOW, you are not allowed to take off.
References:

SKYbrary: Maximum Take-Off Mass (MTOM)
Wikipedia: Aircraft gross weight

Then why on earth is it specified at a certain value?

@AbdullahisnotanAmalekite Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Can you show an example? I looked at a few Wikipedia articles for aircraft specifications and couldn't find one that specifies gross weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress

@AbdullahisnotanAmalekite That Wikipedia article uses this NASA table as a source. No idea what they mean with $w_g$. Maybe typical gross weight?

@Bianfable: the full NASA report defines $w_g$ as "design gross weight". I suspect this is simply a fancy terminology for the maximum taxi weight

@sophit Thanks for the link! It could be a term for max. taxi weight as set during the initial design process. Wikipedia claims a higher MTOW though, so it may have changed during the development.

@sophit maximum taxi weight is greater than MTOW, whereas "gross weight" isnt

@AbdullahisnotanAmalekite: in the NASA report I linked, $w_g$ is the biggest weight, I was just referring to that specific report


text:
Is ICL Surgery Approved by DGCA in India?
In India, my physical doesn't look like a good fit for Laser Assisted in Situ Keratomileusis, LASIK, but I am considering the Implantable Collamer Lens, ICL. I am not sure if the ICL be approved by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, DGCA, in India. Where can I find related information?


text:
How do airplane wheels differ from automobile wheels and why?
The tires on airplane wheels seem to be a lot thicker than automobile tires. Next to that many airplane tires also seem to have much less tread pattern compared to car tires.
Why do the wheels on modern airplanes look so different to car wheels and why? When the airplane was first invented the wheels on it looked very similar to those of a car. But now-a-days airplane tires have a completely different design.

There is a very wide range of types of airplane wheels!  (And even wider if we say aircraft!)

I have a vague recollection that aircraft tyres are often still crossply designs, rather than steel-belted radials as a modern car would have, but can't find anything either way.   Remember the tyres aren't in use for most of a flight, so the wear is from two runway taxis, a landing and a takeoff.  The total mileage travelled is irrelevant :)    Commenting cos no evidence.   Related https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/73668/

Aviation people are all "FAA this, FAA that"... they have no appreciation for how a fine set of rims will make your ride look nicer. And handle better in turns with low-profile tires!

You'll like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhwDlFamB20

Let's start with tire pressure. A car tire has somewhere between 2 and 3.5 bars (that's 29 to 51 psi) while airplane tires go up to 24 bars (350 psi). Next, they must withstand extremely heavy loads for a short time. The spinup and impact load of a standard airliner landing would let any car tire burst in the same circumstances.
In order to be retractable, and even more when not retractable, airplane tires must be as small as possible. An extreme example is the Tu-144, where each main gear had 8 wheels to keep individual tire size down.
The tread on an aircraft tire does not have to transmit torque continuously, only during spinup and when braking. It must give good directional stability in crosswind and avoid hydroplaning as much as possible. This is best achieved with circumferential grooves.
The number of plies of an aircraft tire are more numerous and the rubber thickness is much higher than those of a car tire, proportional to the tire pressure and the spinup and braking loads.
An important addition comes from JohnK:
An important design factor unique to aircraft wheels, even GA wheels, is that the tire must be unable to come off the rim under extreme lateral load with underinflation, which means much more rim/bead overlap, which in turn means the tire can't be stretched over the rim to install it, and the rim is instead made in two halves bolted together.
The tires also need to be able to withstand far more heat than a normal car tire. One of the requirements for a jet aircraft to be certified by the FAA is that a plane with minimum specification brakes must be able to fully reject a takeoff using only the brakes. The plane must then still be able to taxi for five minutes (worst-case assumption for an airport with no on-premises fire/rescue), which means the tires need to be able to withstand that extreme environment for a short time.

Another important design factor unique to aircraft wheels, even GA wheels, is the tire must be unable to come off the rim under extreme lateral load with underinflation, which means much more rim/bead overlap, which means the tire can't be stretched over the rim to install it, and the rim is instead made in two halves bolted together.

@JohnK Right, thanks! If you don't mind, I add this to the answer

In addition, because of the thick structure of an airplane tire, its rate of flexural heating will be much greater than for example that of a car tire especially if it is underinflated. This means if you try driving an airplane tire around all day on the freeway, it will get hot enough to self-destruct- which it will not do on a takeoff or landing because the running time is much shorter in those cases.

Great answer!  Another big difference is that automotive wheels drive the car, so must be bolted to the axle flange.  Aircraft wheels spin freely when the brakes aren't applied, so they are mounted on bearings.

@James In your 4x4 you are right, but my front wheel drive has exactly the same free-spinning wheels on its rear wheel suspension. The front wheel suspension of the Piaggio Vespa was even inspired by airplane landing gears.

@PeterKämpf:  Good point about some car wheels not being drive wheels!  Of course most car wheels are still bolted onto a flange regardless.  Most aircraft wheels are not bolted on because they either have no braking (nose/tail wheels) or they interact directly with the brake through keys and slots.

What's different about aircraft wheels that makes the ideal solution to preventing debeading being larger overlap areas, etc rather than bead-locks like drag racers and off roaders use?

"must be able to fully reject a takeoff using only the brakes" - Not quite, they're allowed to use spoilers (and airbrakes, if so equipped) too.

Two part rims are also known as split rims in the automotive world, somewhat common in Military because someone can change a tyre in the field with a spanner, not a tyre machine or big levers.  Probably still lighter than bead-locks too.

@nielsnielsen: This also means that underinflation is much more destructive to an airplane tyre than to an automobile tyre.  An automobile tyre can go completely flat and still be perfectly safe to use once it's been pumped up again, whereas an airplane tyre that's as little as 15% below normal pressure is at risk of internal damage and has to be dismounted and carefully inspected to see if it has to be scrapped (source).


text:
Airliner failing to execute flare during landing
If an airplane such as Boeing-777 doesn't do a flare and instead continues "50, 40, 30, 20, 10..." at a steady rate, how hard will it hit the ground?
(Added later)
Specifically, will it be a "hard landing" or an outright crash? How many Gs will it feel like?

Sin 3 degrees x 150 knots around 8 knots.

And how many Gs would people in the plane feel? Could the plane be damaged?

Welcome to aviation.SE! This question is closely related, and this answer seems to include the information you're looking for (for a 747, not a 777).

As a reference point, Boeing aircraft are designed to withstand a landing at 600 fpm descent rate (source), which equates to about 6 knots.

So, as a practical matter, if you don't do a flare, the plane will crash--is that the correct assumption?

all together now: "Any Landing You Can Walk Away From Is A Good One…"

It will be a hard landing, not a "crash".  The normal decent rate at typical reference speeds of 130-140 knots is somewhere around 700 fpm.  Aircraft carrier landings are pretty much that rate (you are basically descending into the water, but the deck gets in the way) but carrier airplanes are designed to take the forces.
Assuming you touch down on the runway (Speedbird 38 landed on grass, sinking at a very high rate, which ripped the gear out, and it's not really comparable), everybody will know it, you will probably blow tires, some passengers may have sore backs, and there is a good chance of bending something in the gear or in the structural attachments for the gear.  But maybe not.
What will happen is the plane will taxi in or get towed in and go for a special hard landing inspection, specified for that type and which will have a dedicated AMM procedure.
This will involve going over the structure and all of the key attachment points that have possibly been overstressed, to find out if things are bent, elongated, distorted, cracked, etc.  It could involve visual inspections, dimensional checks, and possibly specific Non Destructive Testing checks like X-ray, Ultrasound, Eddy Current, etc. to detect hidden overstress fractures.
If the plane passes the special inspection, it's good to go back on the line.  One-time overloads on metal structures are not a problem if the overloads did not exceed the plastic deformation limits of the structure.  In other words, if it's not permanently bent, or ripped, or cracked, it's fine.

It will hit the ground with a vertical velocity equal to whatever its descent rate on the glideslope was. Descent rate, in ft/min, on a 2.5 degree glideslope is just under 5 times its ground speed (in knots). Simpler, take half the ground speed and multiply by 10. So an aircraft at a ground speed of 150 knots will have a descent rate of around 750 ft/min.
Actually doing the math, the numbers for various glide slope angles are as follows:
Glide Slope ---------- Descent rate (ft/min) (as multiple of Ground Speed)
   2.5 deg ----------- 4.4 x Ground Speed (knots)
   3.0 deg ----------- 5.3 x Ground Speed
   3.5 deg ----------- 6.2 x Ground Speed

By the way, these numbers come from having to convert knots (nm/hour) into feet per minute. 1 Knot is 1.69 ft/sec, and there are 60 seconds in each minute. so you have to multiply the sine of the glide path angle by 1.69 and then by 60....

If a standard 3 1/2° glidepath is used during final approach and Vref for the airplane is there around 150 knots, that equates to an approx 750-800 fpm descent, resulting in a very hard landing.  The airplane could possibly even experience structural damage as a result


text:
Can a plane still climb even if it has exceeded the critical AoA?
According to this answer here, an airplane requires less lift for a climb than horizontal flight because the thrust of the engines will point up.
Now if the wing was in a stall condition, could the engine's thrust just 'power out' the stall, so that the airplane could climb or at least maintain level flight (assuming max thrust is applied)? In this case, the engine's thrust is supporting the entire weight of the aircraft. Is this possible? Can this be the solution to low altitude stall recovery?
EDIT:Could this also work on deep stalls?

Google "3-D flying" in the context of radio-controlled model airplanes for lots of video at flying at extreme angles-of-attack, far beyond the stall

Hint: consider rocket launches.

Previously, concern was expressed whether this question & answers were addressing propeller powered or jet powered aircraft, as the response of each to powered stall is different.  What is the answer detailing the OP's original question, namely, could the engine's thrust just 'power out' (of) the stall?  Dommasch et-al (1967) give this chilling note, "Most modern aircraft have excess power available at stall, and in theory a climb is possible with a stalled aircraft.  Practically speaking, most airplanes are uncontrollable past the stall, and a stalled climb will occur only accidentally."

Manuevering in a stalled condition is the realm of very high T/W ratio military aircraft with computer control.  There is a very interesting grey area here with blown control surfaces as a possible solution.  Technically, a V-22 Osprey wing is "stalled" while rising vertically (so is a Harrier or F-35B), but the relatively slow rise makes drag effects insignificant.  So, you'll get a "yes" out of me, provided sufficient thrust is available and the plane can be safely controlled while stalled. A rare plane indeed.  Watch how they transition back to winged flight.

What do computers have to do with it?  Stall characteristics, (I.e. sharp break vs “mush”) and thrust to weight ratio are really the only two factors.  Prop vs jet is immaterial.  Bottom line, it depends on the plane.  (As well as pilot recognition and response)

The problems would be precisely calculating thrust and pitch corrections for the stall break, and controlling a stalled aircraft.  If I had to, entering a 1/4 loop without stalling and allowing speed to bleed off to my G + drag requirement (slow climb) would be the non-computer way to do it.  But most planes would do a tail slide.  Overpowered r/c models can at least "hang on the prop" and use blown surfaces for control.  But these examples are not stalled.

Perhaps we can agree Vx is the best Angle of climb.

@RobertDiGiovanni, what sort of precise calculations for thrust and pitch would you perform in midst of a stall?!

@RobertDiGiovanni, I have no response other than wow, we really... really, are worlds apart in terms of communicating.  Obviously nothing more can come from this.  Cheers.

@RobertDiGiovanni, I don't know how to push this to discussion, but if you want to insult me and keep this going I am game.  First, I am not an FAA CFI.  Never have been.  Read my profile.  Second, if your profile is correct, research is a hobby to you so I think "scientist" is a stretch.  You obviously have a sharp mind, but you have also tossed some real zingers out on this site.  Third, regardless of our respective backgrounds, the ability to acknowledge each other's points is key to communicating.  Whenever I try to distill something to its essence for clarity you go off on a tangent...

@MichaelHall well, I do feel bad about not communicating well, so hopefully I will be better about staying on topic.  This site has taught me so much in 3 1/2 years, and it is my hope that some what I have done has benefitted others.  So, if there is anything specific about what I write, I will do my best to address it.

@RobertDiGiovanni, Don't feel bad, just please stop dispensing simple pilot advice to me. My credentials are way past basic CFI and it's insulting. And stay on topic. When I point out, (or try to get you to realize by asking...) that you don't need a computer to calculate anything to power out of a stall if you have benign stall characteristics and gobs of thrust, please don't ignore the point and man'splain how a rocket doesn't need wings to generate lift, or wander off talking about 1/4 loops, tailslides, and Space-X!

P.S.  You contribute a lot here, and I am confident that we would get along fabulously over a beer or coffee.  Look me up if you ever get to Seattle, I'll buy...

Yes, it regularly done by aerobatics airplanes.
Also at 2010 Zhuhai Airshow a Chengdu J-10 demonstrated a 160kph low speed level flight. The weight of the aircraft is indeed supported by the engine. As the wing stalls deeper, the pilot turned on the afterburner to compensate.
With thrust vectoring this is even easier and more gracefully executed as shown by Su-57 at MAKS 2021
Can this be the solution to low altitude stall recovery?
Not really.
The thrust to weight ratio of the airplane in question isn't likely to be high enough. For the few jet fighters whose TWR is marginally greater than 1, you would need almost all of the thrust to be able to support the aircraft, meaning your pitch angle has to be almost vertical. Remember the elevator would also stall soon after (or soon before) the wing stalls, with reduced pitch authority I doubt you could pitch up so high and quickly enough.
Moreover, due to the very high pitch angle, by entering this maneuver you lead the aircraft into a even deeper stall, i.e. all your control surfaces are likely to stall as well, then the aircraft could become unstable and uncontrollable, which makes it very difficult to exit this maneuver gracefully. In the absence of thrust vectoring, I don't think any pilot would consider this maneuver as an improvement to the existing stall.
Finally, the reason why you run into low attitude stall is very often due to malfunctioning instrument, compromised pitch authority, or mishandling by the pilot, which are all the opposite of what's necessary for a safe execution of this maneuver. The feasibility of this maneuver is in doubt.

I don't really understand the reference to MCAS (not MACS): MCAS was designed to avoid a stall, and because of faulty AOA sensors it pitched the aircraft down trying to avoid a condition that it thought could induce a stall, but the aircraft ultimately crashed because they flew into the ground, not because of stall...

@rob74 removed .

The Chengdu J-10 is a canard/delta planform.  These are known not to stall at very high AoA.  Even without the canard, Yeager proved this in the 1949!

By definition, an aircraft that exceeds its critical angle of attack is stalled (i.e., the wings cannot generate enough lift to overcome weight).  A stall can occur in any attitude or at any airspeed -- it just needs to exceed critical AoA.  Examples of this are pilots trying to hold altitude or climb in steep banks, or doing a sharp pullup from a high speed pass down a runway.
An airplane will not recover from the stall until the AoA is reduced to less than the critical AoA.  There are likely a few planes (mostly military) with enough thrust to accelerate the airplane enough to change the relative wind aspect of AoA enough to reduce AoA, but they could probably be thought of more as rockets than airplanes.  For nearly all airplanes, there is nowhere near enough thrust to do that.  Trying to "power out" of a stall is a recipe for disaster.
The most effective and immediate way to recover from a stall is to release back pressure.  In most cases, that will result in a loss of altitude.  Adding power can help reduce the amount of altitude loss in the recovery, but will not be sufficient to recover from the stall by itself.  Airplanes vary in the amount of altitude they require for recovery, from less than 100 feet to hundreds of feet.  Available thrust is only one factor in altitude loss in recovery.
Your concern about low-altitude stalls is valid.  They are the primary cause of a large portion of fatal aircraft accidents.  The best way to avoid such accidents is for pilots to recognize approaching stalls and execute a recovery before the complete stall.  Until the stall, the aircraft can be recovered without loss of altitude.  Once the airplane stalls, at least some loss of altitude is inevitable, even with an immediate and correct recovery.  In reality, most pilots who are taken by surprise by a stall at low altitude will be unlikely to quickly lower the nose because the ground is so near, and will therefore keep the airplane in the stall instead.  That is why the idea of "powering out" of a stall is so dangerous.  A pilot who has stalled close to the ground would love to think he or she could just add power to fix the situation rather than lowering the nose.  It won't.

Ok then I understand that lowering the nose will help get out of the stall, but at least you can minimize altitude loss with power (yes I know that lowering the nose is the first priority)

Yes, a plane can continue climbing even when it exceeds the critical AoA, as long as it has enough thrust and sufficient pitch for that thrust to have a large enough vertical component to maintain the climb. Actually, for a moment after passing critical AoA it will keep climbing due to inertia, but to keep it going, it will need, as us scientists call it, "stupid amounts of thrust".
The equations of lift, thrust, weight and drag during climb are nicely displayed on NASA website:

The steeper the climb, the more thrust is needed to maintain climb. Also, the less lift is available, as in the case of flying at higher that critical AoA would be, the more vertical thrust component is needed to compensate for the lack of aerodynamic lift.
This is why for example fighter jets that may have thrust to weight ratios larger that 1 (engine has more thrust than the weight of the plane in its current configuration) have to fly at very high angles of attack to maintain or gain altitude when they are going slowly, near or beyond critical angle of attack: the engine needs to be pointed downwards enough to keep the thrust vector high enough to keep the aircraft flying, as the lift from the wings is weak.

One more try here.  We have a 100m race.  Average high school track athlete vs an Olympic gold medalist.
The Olympic gold medalist has to run through waist deep water.  The high school athlete runs downhill through air.
Who do you bet on?
Now, if both were smart enough to stay out of the water, a more interesting race would be the Olympic runner uphill vs the high school runner downhill.
It would look pretty stupid to hold the race in water, up or down hill.
The difference with aircraft is that sink from loss of lift causes the relative wind to create an even higher AoA.  This is why it is imperative to drop the nose faster than sink increases AoA, preferably at the pre-stall warning.
Some simple math can show an airliner falling at 200 knots can "power" up to 500 knots and still be stalled.  From 30,000 feet that's around 100 seconds to impact.  Making matters worse, now you risk V never exceed as you finally come to your senses and pitch down to unstall.

the physics of turning favor lower speed.  Unstall first, then add power.

Essentially, it becomes a question of knowing the performance limits of the aircraft.  As engines are generally at or near full power in a climb, the risks of continuing to climb in a stalled condition become obvious.
Can it be done? With hovering capacity, yes.  Sustained climb while stalled?  Slowly, yes.  Economicly? No.
Most aircraft will lose significant airspeed well before 45 degrees climb angle.  Even the Olympic runner cannot maintain speed on a steep grade.  To get a better feel for this, draw some closed vector diagrams for various climb angles.  The gap between winged flight power requirement and hovering flight power requirement is simply too great for most aircraft to simply "gun it" while ignoring aerodynamics.


text:
Given roll angle and constant velocity, calculate new position
I'm simulating an aircraft in Simulink and then using a controller to make it follow a reference path. My control inputs are elevator, aileron and rudder angles and the outputs of the state space are roll, pitch and yaw.
I'm struggling to find info on how to get displacement using the roll angle of the aircraft. At the moment I'm using Euler angles to go from a constant local velocity to a global one.

Thanks

What is the result if you integrate over small time steps and update all state variables after each step? Also, in order to keep speed constant, you should also control thrust.

Just remember, when climbing or descending, a non -zero roll rate is required to maintain a constant bank angle.  If your results aren't consistent w/ this, something is wrong.  Required direction of roll for constant bank is toward high wingtip when climbing (i.e. bank angle will tend to increase if roll rate is damped or brought to zero), and toward low wingtip when descending (i.e. bank angle will tend to decrease if roll rate is damped or brought to zero), and this has a very significant impact on stability and control characteristics.

Thanks for the comments guys
@PeterKämpf
I have been integrating the global velocities wrt time to get the new global positions. I think my problem lies with if simply applying Euler angles to a vector of local velocities (v_local = [178m/s 0m/s 0m/s]') is how one gets global velocities or am I missing something?
quietflyer
I see. I just checked the roll rate there in the simulation and thankfully it is non-zero while climbing.

Could you approach it with the Rate of Turn formula?

I’m voting to close this question because it is about debugging a computer model, rather than about Aviation.

Have you ever watched an air show?  Or performed a slip? Roll angle is independent of rate of turn. (By that I mean that an airplane can maintain a constant heading at any bank angle).  There is only a relationship in a coordinated turn. Are you attempting to implement a full 6-DOF flight model or something less like 3-DOF?

@RobertDiGiovanni
That looks promising, thank you Robert
Jim
Okay, I understand. I am attempting to implement a 6 DOF model, to ascend a certain amount and to move laterally a certain amount simultaneously.

This question is about aviation. We have several tags for flight simulation. Voting to keep open.

@Jim actually, to maintain a constant heading with a roll one has to generate a lateral force in the other direction to compensate the wing horizontal vector.  In effect, the fuselage becomes a crappy, draggy airfoil producing an opposite lateral vector.  The picture alone keeps this question positive, and open.  Agree with u that ROT formula is for coordinated flight.

@RobertDiGiovanni - Yes, but the point it since it can be done you can’t derive a turn rate from just a bank angle.   And to nitpick, it says “constant velocity” in the title.  Which means zero turn rate. But I expect OP really meant constant airspeed.

@RobertDiGiovanni - Ok, constant earth-axis velocity.  I suppose constant body-axis velocity could involve a turn rate.

Thanks @Koyovis

Just to clarify, some comments and answers are getting into the aerodynamic roll torques generated by turning flight.  My comment above is fundamentally not about aerodynamics and is rather about the geometrical relationship between bank angle and roll rate; it's an issue of spherical geometry, not aerodynamics.  Though it's not entirely unrelated to aerodynamics, as any non-zero roll rate tends to be opposed by an aerodynamic "damping" effect.  And of course there are also other aerodynamic roll torques associated with turning flight as well, most of which tend to increase the bank angle.

But my basic point is that even without knowing anything whatsoever about the aerodynamic roll torques acting on the aircraft at any given instant, just by knowing starting bank angle, roll rate, climb or descent rate (or climb/descent angle), and airspeed, you ought to be able to predict the bank angle a given increment of time later.  And if the aircraft is climbing or descending, the roll rate must not be zero, if the bank angle is to remain constant.   If your results aren't consistent with this, you have a problem.  Regardless of the exact breakdown  of the various roll torques at play.

But maybe I'm way over-complicating this.  Is your problem that the aircraft is flying at a constant bank angle and airspeed and climb or descent rate (or in level flight), and you know its position at instant A and want to find its position at instant B?  If so, that's a rather trivial problem and my comments have taken things to way too deep a level of detail. I thought you were maneuvering in three dimensions and wanted to understand how to integrate roll rate to get bank angle.  Oops-- sorry! Given the context of the question, I apparently mis-interpreted "displacement" to mean bank angle.

(from comments under question) attempting to ... ascend a certain amount and move laterally a certain amount simultaneously

This is a climbing turn.  Climbing and turning both require more thrust than level flight.  Assuming a coordinated turn and constant speed (not a "chandelle"), we can start by examining the Rate of Turn formula to determine lateral displacement over time.
Since lift is less than weight in a climb, lateral forces from the wing will be less.
In very shallow rates of climb, the difference will be tiny.  In much steeper climbs, the plane rolls more and yaws less through the turn, almost a mirror image of an aircraft transitioning from a spiral dive into a rolling bad ending.
I would imagine the aircraft pictured has more than gentle manuevers in mind.  Specifics on rate of turn and climb would be helpful.

Okay rate of turn equation it is.
I want it to climb at 5m/s (for 10 sec).
The roll angle is approximately 0.002 radians (or 0.11456 degrees) and velocity is 178m/s (or 346knots) so, therefore
ROT = (1091tan(a)) / v (knots) = (1091tan(0.11456)) / 346 = 6.305E-3 °/sec

@user62605  if I was actually flying it I would increase throttle, establish climb, increase throttle, roll to turn at first to make sure my speed did not drop off too fast, especially for a very high wing load like the plane pictured.  Recommend doing the same for your Sim for now.

If you are trying to simulate an aircraft (in Matlab/Simulink) you would typically use the equations of motion for aircraft. As these are taught all around the world you can also find a lot of lectures about this stuff, for example here or here.
Normally you would simulate all 12 states of the 6-DOF equations of motion, but if you are only interested in the translational part, you would use the following formulas:
$
\dot{u} = \frac{X}{m} − g \cdot \sin(\theta) + r \cdot v − q \cdot w\\
\dot{v} = \frac{Y}{m} − g \cdot \sin(\phi) \cdot \cos(\theta) - r \cdot u + p \cdot w\\
\dot{w} = \frac{Z}{m} − g \cdot \cos(\phi)  \ cos( \theta) - q \cdot u − p \cdot v\\
$
With $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ being the aerodynamic and motor forces, $m$ being the mass, $\phi, \theta, \psi$ the euler angles, $p, q, r$ the rotational rates and $u, v, w$ the body velocities (or local velocities as you call them).
Normally you would now get your aerodynamic and motor forces, (depending on your inputs for elevator, rudder, ailerons and motor control) sum them up and put them into the formula above. After this step, you obtain the body velocities $u$, $v$ and $w$ which you THEN can convert to velocities in the inertial frame via the euler rotation to velocities in inertial frame (Reference on page 18 tells you how to do that, but be aware WHICH Euler rotation you want to use, there are several). Then you can simply integrate these velocities to obtain the position of your aircraft.
This is the standard way to perform a flight simulation.
P.S. It sounds like you are performing an incomplete simulation of your flight model, as you only obtain the euler angles. Especially if you want to develop a controller, you should perhaps revisit how you simulate your flight model.
P.P.S. I want to point out that what you are refering to as "local" velocity, is (in the flight dynamics community) typically called "body" velocity (the frame of reference is then called the body frame). What you are refering to as "global" velocity is typically the inertial velocity (defined in the inertial coordinate system)
P.P.P.S. The aerospace toolbox of Simulink contains most of these calculations as Blocks which you can use. If you are a student you might have free access to that toolbox ;).

You need to consider why the airplane flies at a nonzero roll angle.
The reason is the creation of a side force by tilting wing lift. This side force is needed to balance the centrifugal force resulting from turning (or to create the centripetal force needed for turning, for those of you who prefer a different point of view). Only looking at Euler angles does not give you (rsp. your mathematical model) the full picture. You also need to consider their rate of change and the inertial forces resulting from those rotations.

Okay great thank you, Peter, that helps a lot


text:
How do I calculate TAS from IAS in this question?
How can I calculate the answer to this EASA PPL ECQB question?

An aircraft cruises at altitude 5000 ft on a heading of 180° with an
  indicated airspeed of 100 kt. The wind vector is 180° with 30 kt.
  Neglecting instrument and position errors, which will be the
  approximate true airspeed (TAS)?

Hi and welcome to the site! That sounds like a homework question, and you should at least show what you have done to try to solve it yourself.

You don’t have enough information. You also need OAT (outside air temperature).

Just convert 100 kt indicated to TAS at 5000 ft using your flight computer.  The wind data is a smoke screen to throw you astray if you don't really understand what you are looking for.

Understood. Thank you alot.